Monday, May 12, 2014

To the bitter end -" The shock wave theory", part one

In all these thoughts/blogs, one question constantly emerges and the question is-why? Why these things happen, why they are upheld, why they are promoted, why they are ok, why we tolerate them. Why?
Why it can't be different? Because there is more to this subject that meets the eyes. Much more.
By itself, this behavior is not a reason itself, yet it is a consequence of something a lot more bigger and darker. Someone once wrote that, "you will recognize the end of one society or civilization by two things, one of them being the disintegration of roads and the other one being ever increasing population of stray dogs".

I know that these words are true, because that is the setting where I live and by all parameters our end has come.

The disintegration of roads means, in essence, that the inner dynamic of one society ceased to function. Its like a bloodstream that has been shut off and as a consequence of that, body dies. But it doesn't die right away, yet as the bloodstream shuts, body functions degrade gradually until only most basic aka vital functions remain. Ones with the medical background will understand this better than the others. In the social realm, when things are seen from this angle, something that exists at the surface level and can be considered as miniscule and trivial, such as pet ownership is actually an reflection from the very core of the society, an echo or more precise an shock wave from the center of that society where more serious and vital things happen. Seen like that, the pet ownership suddenly changes category, from trivial to crucial

Having a neighbor that has a dog, that often freely runs outside and deals death and damage, means in essence that the area that that dog covers is off limits to anyone whom believes that it can move freely. That area than becomes a limit to movement and with that limit, the freedom of movement gets shut down and with it, the bloodstream of one society. The road that leads to the dogcraver house, instantly looses its meaning because its function, to allow travel aka the movement, is reduced to zero, since it crosses the territory of the dog. No one wants to go trough that road, since it is unsafe and slowly everything that that road connects becomes disconnected and dies off. That is how the damage is spreading and destroying everything in its path.

If we take the society as a system that functions in every segment, this course of events means that its functionality as a whole is compromised and that it falls apart in certain segments. However, the problem is that as its functionality decreases, that empty space that is left is not left alone, it does not become an empty space, yet it is replaced by a new system that aggressively spreads and seeks out to destroy existing system, in this case the society itself.

The process of this "conversion" goes something like this.

If you have an dog owner whom cannot control his dog and that dog, in its desire to dominate, is let to behave naturally, it will cross boundaries set by humans. From the most basic form of boundaries, such as yards, fences that define one property, to house doors, streets and roads, to a more complex boundaries such as human morals and up to the very top the legal system that defines the relations within one society, all these things don't mean a thing to a dog that is loose. All it wants is to dominate and it will kill and maul everything that it can. Its natural behavior turns to rubble literary everything, from fence and the sense of private property to a street aka the public property up to the legal system.

Since the dog owner is the one responsible for the dog and the dog's behavior, this means that he should be punished for the dog's actions and that is the responsibility of the system. However, the failure of the system to react in these cases means a victory for the dog and the dog owner and allows them to create their own system, the system of dog governance. The dogotopia. Now the dog decides whom to bite and how much and the dog owner takes the dog power as he is the owner and he becomes a factor that governs. The power of the system than, gets transferred from system to a dogcraver making the dogcraver more powerful and the system weaker.

As the system retreats, the dogcravers advance. As they advance, their system advances as well and that is how you get various "support groups" and "projects" that aim to make this behavior accepted as normal. In legal terms, this means legalizing it. So if human kills other human it is illegal, but if dog kills a human than it is legal. The fact that the dog that killed human was physically present due to a fact that the person wanted the dog, that that person got the dog and that allowed the dog to come in contact with the victim is neglected and rejected as plausible cause of death and thus the dogcraver cannot be charged and neither the dog can be charged, which leaves us only with victim but not the criminal.

Following that logic, if a human kills another human with a firearm, that human cannot be guilty simply because the death of another man is a result of chemical processes in the bullet case, thermodynamic of the explosion, physics of the fluid that propels the round, round's flight and the kinetic energy of the round coming in contact with the body of the human. So the killer can't be blamed for fact that the laws of physics function.The fact that the killer has bought a gun, aimed and pulled the trigger doesn't mean a thing, because pulling a trigger doesn't guarantee that the bullet will come out of the barrel. Gun parts can fail, the gunpowder can fail and the wind can alter the ballistic path of the bullet.

By this logic, only killing other human with the bare hands can be qualified as murder while all other methods are not relevant and can be consider as "tragedies" or accidents.

Total Pageviews

About Me

“One of the greatest mistakes, in my opinion, is to identify the pet movement with the ecological movement. The pet movement is an industry based commercial trend while the ecological movement is driven by the noble idea that goes beyond ourselves. The pet movement is equally destructive towards nature as the oil industry is yet it was able to hide its true nature behind pet animal. The pet animal is just another industrial product and has the connection with the nature as much as the oil tanker. It is my firm belief that the greatest danger for the ecological movement and nature itself, comes not from the heavy industries yet from the pet movement itself”.
Professor Hilder